I agree with Babak. We need to be able to support all existing drivers.
But I doubt that we can be successful with any kind of "minimal driver".
We already have that with the generic Apple Laserwriter PS driver and
the HP 3 PCL driver. These can be used for almost any printer in the
world. We don't need to create any new ones.
Scott
************************************************************
Scott A. Isaacson
Print Services Consulting Engineer
Novell Inc., 122 E 1700 S, Provo, UT 84606
V: (801) 861-7366, (800) 453-1267 x17366
F: (801) 861-4025, E: scott_isaacson at novell.com
W: http://www.novell.com
************************************************************
>>> Babak Jahromi <babakj at MICROSOFT.com> 12/17/96 07:46pm >>>
>>if I recall correctly, one of our user requirements was that we would
>like to avoid having a separate print driver to install for every new
network
>printer that a user may want to use. Compare this to fax today - you do
>not expect the user to download a new piece of software for every
new
>fax address he/she wants to use. My hope would be that the "IPP print
driver"
>is a generic piece of software, which can be used for many different
printers
>in combination with a relatively short list of capabilities and options for a
>particular printer. This list could be stored locally or downloaded every
>time.
>Am I too optimistic here?
"Generic" is synonym to "poor feature list". Why do we want to force
people who have invested in full feature printers to treat them like
monochrome fax machines? If people like to use Internet Printing as a
fax service, then the server can install the printer with a minimal
driver, and we can arrage that all Internet clients would have that
minimal driver. But beyond that, the driver would have to be downloaded
from the server. And the good thing is that the driver does not have to
know anything about the new protocol. i.e. no change is needed in
today's drivers.
Babak